Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Westin Tucson Hotel Co. v. State Department of Revenue, 936 P.2d 183.

39 citing documents.

Houston v. Penzone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
See Westin Tucson Hotel Co. v. State Dep’t of Revenue, (issue raised for the first time in a reply supporting a motion for summary judgment is waived on appeal).
Toliver v. US Bank National Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Toliver v. US Bank National Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Westin Tucson Hotel Co. v. State Dep’t of Revenue, (“[A] claim raised for the first time in a reply is waived.”).
Thomas v. Peters Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Thomas v. Peters Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Generally, “a claim raised for the first time in a reply is waived.” Westin Tucson Hotel Co. v. State Dep’t of Revenue
Soto v. Umom New Day Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Soto v. Umom New Day Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
See Westin Tucson Hotel Co. v. State Dep’t of Revenue
Hill v. El Mirage Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Hill v. El Mirage Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
See Westin Tucson Hotel Co. v. Dep’t of Revenue, (rejecting arguments raised in a reply to a summary judgment motion because "a claim raised for the first time in a reply is waived").
Wiltse v. Wiltse Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Wiltse v. Wiltse Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
See Westin Tucson Hotel Co. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, (arguments not adequately raised in superior court are waived on appeal).
Rebel Empire v. Ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Rebel Empire v. Ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
(noting arguments not raised in the tax court are waived on appeal).
Travelers v. Bollschweiler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Travelers v. Bollschweiler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Cf. Westin Tucson Hotel Co. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, (arguments not adequately raised in superior court are waived on appeal).
Evers v. Rose Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Evers v. Rose Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
v. Byers, n.2 (App. 1997), and Westin Tucson Hotel Co. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, ).
Roberts v. Del Webb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Roberts v. Del Webb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
In making this argument, Del Webb relies on Laos v. Soble, where we held that a “contract providing for compensation of a witness contingent on the success of the litigation is subversive of public justice” and “[p]ublic policy considerations brand such contract illegal.” see also, (holding that the Tax Court properly denied taxpayer’s motion for sanctions after Pima County moved to strike the affidavit of the witness for the taxpayer because his fee was contingent on the outcome of the case).
MidFirst Bank v. Chase 284 P.3d 877 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
MidFirst Bank v. Chase 284 P.3d 877 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Coop., , 301 n. 2, , 460 n. 2 (App.1997) (argument not raised until reply memorandum on summary judgment not considered by trial court); , (arguments raised for first time in trial court reply memorandum deemed waived on appeal).
Bt Capital, LLC v. Td Service Co. 265 P.3d 370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Bt Capital, LLC v. Td Service Co. 265 P.3d 370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Because TD did not raise the issue below, and PCF does not raise it here, the issue is not properly before us. See Westin Tucson Hotel Co. v. State Dep’t of Revenue, , (noting issues not raised in the trial court are waived); see also Ariz.R.Civ.P.
STATE, EX REL. HORNE v. Campos 250 P.3d 201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
STATE, EX REL. HORNE v. Campos 250 P.3d 201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Coop., , 301 n.2, , 460 n.2 (App.1997) (argument not raised until reply memorandum on summary judgment not considered by trial court); , (arguments raised for first time in rial-court-reply memorandum deemed waived on appeal).
Martineau v. Maricopa County 86 P.3d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Martineau v. Maricopa County 86 P.3d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Westin Tucson Hotel Co. v. State Dep’t of Revenue, , (citations omitted).
Winters v. Arizona Board of Education 83 P.3d 1114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Winters v. Arizona Board of Education 83 P.3d 1114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Westin Tucson Hotel Co. v. Dep’t of Revenue, , Third & Catalina Assocs.
Avila v. Biedess 78 P.3d 280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Avila v. Biedess 78 P.3d 280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Its reach is co-extensive with that of the federal guarantee, , so we do not separately address it.
Camelback Plaza Development, L.C. v. Hard Rock Café International (Phoenix), Inc. 25 P.3d 8 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Camelback Plaza Development, L.C. v. Hard Rock Café International (Phoenix), Inc. 25 P.3d 8 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
("[A] claim raised for the first time in a reply is waived.”).
Murcott v. Best Western International, Inc. 9 P.3d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Murcott v. Best Western International, Inc. 9 P.3d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
See id.; see also Westin Tucson Hotel Co. v. State Dep’t of Revenue, , (questions not directly raised in the trial court cannot be considered on appeal).
Aida Renta Trust v. Department of Revenue 3 P.3d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Aida Renta Trust v. Department of Revenue 3 P.3d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
See Westin Tucson Hotel Co. v. Arizona Dep’t of Revenue, , North Central, 115 Ariz. at 543 , 566 P.2d at 691 .
State v. Bonnewell 2 P.3d 682 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Bonnewell 2 P.3d 682 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
See Westin Tucson Hotel Co. v. State Dep’t of Revenue